![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 340 to 364 of 795. Go back in thread:
Posted by SLS on December 9, 2013, at 3:00:31
In reply to Re: Lou's reply- » Lou Pilder, posted by 10derheart on December 9, 2013, at 1:28:23
> And BTW, if I do see anything ****I see as**** antisemitic on Babble, I will be sure to speak up in some way.
I am not a legal scholar.
I do not believe that you have a legal responsibility to write anything on the Internet while you reside on US soil. When acting as an agent of Psycho-Babble, I don't think that a lack of words posted by you represents an infraction of criminal or civil law. However, accusing one of antisemitism can be, especially if perpetrated via the written word.
I am curious to know under what circumstances hating Jews or influencing others to hate Jews is a crime in the absence of inciting a riot.
- Scott
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 9, 2013, at 10:01:26
In reply to Lou's reply- The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-werz » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on December 8, 2013, at 16:17:21
> > > As to if readers could know why you and those former deputies did not post otherwise for years, readers could still have to speculate about the reason for that.
> > > But be it as it may be, that is another aspect of all of this, so if you post your proposed post in that thread, it could be better for Jews and Islamic people and ... others ... For people then could see that originally the post was something that was not conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community and so others might not post the same thing or anything analogous to it after you post your proposed post there.
> >
> > Thanks, I appreciate your willingness to compromise. And your devotion to civility.
> >
> > --
> >
> > > let us go on to the another post. This is the one that says something like:
> > > [...One of the top ten worst reasons for organized religion ia if they have their agenda not centered in Chrsit...]
> > > I am looking for in this case, that you could post to show that the statement is not conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community and it is not in accordance with your rule to not post what could put down those of other faiths.
> >
> > I think you mean this statement in this post:
> >
> > > > top 10 worst reasons for organized religion:
> > > > 5. to foster any agenda that is not centered in Christ
> >
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20040729/msgs/378930.html
> >
> > I propose I post to that thread something like:
> >
> > > The above could be read as saying an agenda not centered in Christ is a bad reason for an organized religion. It would've been more civil to say:
> > >
> > > > top 10 worst reasons for organized religion:
> > > > 5. to foster any agenda that is not centered in Christ or other scripture
> > >
> > > Follow-ups regarding this should be redirected to Psycho-Babble Administration. Thanks.
> >
> > Bob
>
> Mr. Hsiung,
> We are using a two-part test:
> 1. Does the remedial action tell readers that the original statement is not conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community. 2. Does the remedial statement show that the original statement puts down those of other faiths.
> Let us examine your proposal to see.
> The above says that a subset of readers could read the original statement as,[... an agenda not centered in Christ is a bad reason for an organized religion...]I would be more civil to say....
> Now that does show that the original statement does not pass the muster for being in accordance with the rules for your use of {a bad reason} could show that the statement is not supportive.
> Let us look further at your proposal that says:
> [...to foster an agenda that is not centered in Christ or other scripture...]
> In your statement there, the question becomes how could a subset of readers think about that?
> The question becomes as to if there are {organized religions} that do not have scripture at all. And then if there are organized religions that have scripture, that also use other means to arrive at there agenda that could contradict scripture of theirs. If so, then those religions would still be put down by reading your proposed remediation, could they not? For they say that scripture is not the only basis for establishing doctrine, or that the scripture of other groups has counterfeited passages.
> I do not see your proposal in that respect to eliminate a subset of readers from seeing that also as a statement that could put down those of other faiths.
> Here is my proposal. Just leave the second part out and say something like:
> [...The statement does not reflect the posting policies here for we do not condone statements that categorize one faith to be better than another...].
> Lou Pilder
>Mr. Hsiung,
In regards to the previous post in question, if you are not going to accommodate my request to show that the statement in question puts down those of other faiths as I have requested for you to post, then you can still post in that thread your remediation and then I will post my response to you where you post it.
Now we could go on with the next one. Here is a post that offers some links to bible passages. I am interested in the last offered link as John 5 as the LDS.org scripture link.
In the offered passage, the Jews are portrayed in a manner that constitutes what is known as anti-Judaism and could arouse anti-Semitic feelings, for the statements put down Jews.
These are in the verses 16, 18, 23, 37, 38, 42 and 44.
What I am asking for you to do here is to post your remediation so that readers could know that:
A. Linking to something still makes what is linked to be directly to the text and is as if the poster posted it themselves.
B. That the statements are not conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community
C. That the statements put down Jews which is not in accordance with the rule to not post what could put down those of other faiths
D. redacted by respondent
Lou Pilder
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 9, 2013, at 10:06:12
In reply to Lou's reply- The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-antiJuda, posted by Lou Pilder on December 9, 2013, at 10:01:26
> > > > As to if readers could know why you and those former deputies did not post otherwise for years, readers could still have to speculate about the reason for that.
> > > > But be it as it may be, that is another aspect of all of this, so if you post your proposed post in that thread, it could be better for Jews and Islamic people and ... others ... For people then could see that originally the post was something that was not conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community and so others might not post the same thing or anything analogous to it after you post your proposed post there.
> > >
> > > Thanks, I appreciate your willingness to compromise. And your devotion to civility.
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > > let us go on to the another post. This is the one that says something like:
> > > > [...One of the top ten worst reasons for organized religion ia if they have their agenda not centered in Chrsit...]
> > > > I am looking for in this case, that you could post to show that the statement is not conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community and it is not in accordance with your rule to not post what could put down those of other faiths.
> > >
> > > I think you mean this statement in this post:
> > >
> > > > > top 10 worst reasons for organized religion:
> > > > > 5. to foster any agenda that is not centered in Christ
> > >
> > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20040729/msgs/378930.html
> > >
> > > I propose I post to that thread something like:
> > >
> > > > The above could be read as saying an agenda not centered in Christ is a bad reason for an organized religion. It would've been more civil to say:
> > > >
> > > > > top 10 worst reasons for organized religion:
> > > > > 5. to foster any agenda that is not centered in Christ or other scripture
> > > >
> > > > Follow-ups regarding this should be redirected to Psycho-Babble Administration. Thanks.
> > >
> > > Bob
> >
> > Mr. Hsiung,
> > We are using a two-part test:
> > 1. Does the remedial action tell readers that the original statement is not conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community. 2. Does the remedial statement show that the original statement puts down those of other faiths.
> > Let us examine your proposal to see.
> > The above says that a subset of readers could read the original statement as,[... an agenda not centered in Christ is a bad reason for an organized religion...]I would be more civil to say....
> > Now that does show that the original statement does not pass the muster for being in accordance with the rules for your use of {a bad reason} could show that the statement is not supportive.
> > Let us look further at your proposal that says:
> > [...to foster an agenda that is not centered in Christ or other scripture...]
> > In your statement there, the question becomes how could a subset of readers think about that?
> > The question becomes as to if there are {organized religions} that do not have scripture at all. And then if there are organized religions that have scripture, that also use other means to arrive at there agenda that could contradict scripture of theirs. If so, then those religions would still be put down by reading your proposed remediation, could they not? For they say that scripture is not the only basis for establishing doctrine, or that the scripture of other groups has counterfeited passages.
> > I do not see your proposal in that respect to eliminate a subset of readers from seeing that also as a statement that could put down those of other faiths.
> > Here is my proposal. Just leave the second part out and say something like:
> > [...The statement does not reflect the posting policies here for we do not condone statements that categorize one faith to be better than another...].
> > Lou Pilder
> >
>
> Mr. Hsiung,
> In regards to the previous post in question, if you are not going to accommodate my request to show that the statement in question puts down those of other faiths as I have requested for you to post, then you can still post in that thread your remediation and then I will post my response to you where you post it.
> Now we could go on with the next one. Here is a post that offers some links to bible passages. I am interested in the last offered link as John 5 as the LDS.org scripture link.
> In the offered passage, the Jews are portrayed in a manner that constitutes what is known as anti-Judaism and could arouse anti-Semitic feelings, for the statements put down Jews.
> These are in the verses 16, 18, 23, 37, 38, 42 and 44.
> What I am asking for you to do here is to post your remediation so that readers could know that:
> A. Linking to something still makes what is linked to be directly to the text and is as if the poster posted it themselves.
> B. That the statements are not conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community
> C. That the statements put down Jews which is not in accordance with the rule to not post what could put down those of other faiths
> D. redacted by respondent
> Lou PilderMr Hsiung,
The link to this post with the passage that puts down Jews is:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20051105/msgs/656322.html
Posted by SLS on December 9, 2013, at 11:36:20
In reply to Link- Lou's reply- Hsiung-Pilder -antiJuda, posted by Lou Pilder on December 9, 2013, at 10:06:12
Is your Jewish perspective and personal spiritual revelations the only modalities by which someone can become free of psychotropic drugs and lead someone to peace and happiness?
1. If yes, then doesn't that discount all other perspectives, including Christian pathways that lead to mental health, peace, and happiness?
2. If yes, then could your statements not arouse anti-Christian sentiments when combined with your condemnation of the fundamental tenets of that religion?
3. If yes, then could your statements not arouse anti-Judaic sentiments due to your being a Jew who condemns the fundamental tenet of Christianity?
4. If no, then what other perspectives and modalities can free someone from psychotropic drugs and lead to peace and happiness?
- Scott
Posted by Dinah on December 9, 2013, at 12:39:41
In reply to Lou's reply- » 10derheart, posted by Lou Pilder on December 8, 2013, at 17:52:55
If Dr. Bob won't say it, I will. A citizens PBC.
I do not believe that threats are civil.
Posted by Dinah on December 9, 2013, at 12:45:57
In reply to Please be civil » Lou Pilder, posted by Dinah on December 9, 2013, at 12:39:41
I daresay Dr. Bob believes that suggestions that one might be executed by Islamic peoples because we don't respond as Lou would like is perfectly civil.
But personally I think it's no more civil to followers of Islam than it is to me and 10derheart.
Posted by SLS on December 9, 2013, at 13:07:32
In reply to Please be civil » Lou Pilder, posted by Dinah on December 9, 2013, at 12:39:41
> If Dr. Bob won't say it, I will. A citizens PBC.
>
> I do not believe that threats are civil.
I'm sure you know that such a verbal threat can be ruled by a criminal court as being an assault; punishable by fines and imprisonment. A verbal assault can also be ruled as being a tort in civil court; to be remedied by payment of money for damages and punitive measures.IN REAL LIFE.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Verbal+assault
- Scott
Posted by Dr. Bob on December 10, 2013, at 2:39:29
In reply to Re: Lou's reply- » Lou Pilder, posted by 10derheart on December 9, 2013, at 1:28:23
> > be advised that there are countries where anyone that is involved in insulting Islam could be executed,, even the deputies of the on-line promoter and conceivably any of the members that are in concert with you to allow statements that put down and insult Islam.
>
> Ah, I see. Execution of deputies and possibly of the other posters, too? I hadn't thought of that. I am incapable of making such a leap from the subject at hand, but I see that you are able to do that.
>
> I'll take my chances. Thanks for the warning, though.I see the above as effective use of your shield. You saw something coming at you and you didn't let it get to you. Good work.
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on December 10, 2013, at 2:46:50
In reply to Lou's reply- The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-werz » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on December 8, 2013, at 16:17:21
> > > > 5. to foster any agenda that is not centered in Christ or other scripture
>
> The question becomes as to if there are {organized religions} that do not have scripture at all.I wondered that, too. Do you know the answer? Does anyone else?
> Here is my proposal. Just leave the second part out and say something like:
> [...The statement does not reflect the posting policies here for we do not condone statements that categorize one faith to be better than another...].I like how accepting that is. But do you in fact feel there's no such thing as a bad reason for an organized religion?
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 10, 2013, at 8:00:09
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on December 10, 2013, at 2:46:50
> > > > > 5. to foster any agenda that is not centered in Christ or other scripture
> >
> > The question becomes as to if there are {organized religions} that do not have scripture at all.
>
> I wondered that, too. Do you know the answer? Does anyone else?
>
> > Here is my proposal. Just leave the second part out and say something like:
> > [...The statement does not reflect the posting policies here for we do not condone statements that categorize one faith to be better than another...].
>
> I like how accepting that is. But do you in fact feel there's no such thing as a bad reason for an organized religion?
>
> BobMr Hsiung,
The issue here is the statement in question. Adding to it does not annul what it purports about those religions that have their agenda not centered in Christ.
When a Jew sees the statement, or an Islamic person, or others that are members of a religion that does not have their agenda centered in Christ, there could be a subset of those people that could consider the statement to be an insult to their religion and to themselves for being a member of such. I am asking that you post to that post that the statement could lead people of other faiths to feel put down because it is against your rules to post what could put down those of other faiths. I do not consider your addition to what is posted to annul the fact of what the statement in question purports as you agree that it could mean that organized religions that do not have their agenda centered In Christ could be bad religions.
I suggest that if you are unwilling to state that the statement in question is against your rules to not post what could put down those of other faiths, then could you post your rationale for such here? If you could, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
Also, I would like to go on to the other post in our discussion about the link to John 5, that puts down Jews, and see what your remedial action could be for that.
Lou Pilder
Posted by SLS on December 10, 2013, at 8:19:58
In reply to Lou's reply-The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-jnphyv » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on December 10, 2013, at 8:00:09
> there could be a subset of those people that could consider the statement to be an insult to their religion and to themselves for being a member of such
What are the characteristics of such a subset of people?
Are you a member of such?
I am not.
What do you find so intolerable about a Christian stating their opinion that you will not go to heaven because you are not Christian? Is your shield not strong enough? You and Dr. Hsiung quibble over words instead of him helping you to develop one.
- Scott
Posted by 10derheart on December 10, 2013, at 12:20:26
In reply to Re: shielding oneself » 10derheart, posted by Dr. Bob on December 10, 2013, at 2:39:29
I don't know what you're talking about. Please do not use a therapeutic tone with me. I am not striving to use shields defined by you and certainly not to get a back pat. Yuk. What has happened to your appropriate boundaries here? This is a message board, not the therapy space and it is CREEPY when you sound like you are acting as a therapist to me. Please stop it.
I asked Lou what the hell he meant by his cryptic phrase that sounded like a threat about worse things. Now I understand he did not mean anything coming from him personally or anything he orchestrates (at least I hope not) but instead, a warning to me about an alleged "threat" from third parties. Fine.
He told me he means some Islamic entities somewhere, somehow, apparently may target Dinah and me and other former deputies and posters who support us - and presumably you, too - for execution. I sarcastically acknowledged this.
It didn't get to me, you say? Shows how very, very little you understand anything about any of this if you believe that for a minute. All I can say on the positive side is that at least this time Lou didn't accuse me **directly** of anything (rare event) heinous and absurd, but instead mentioned some hypothetical others who surely read or know about Dr. Bob's Psychobabble. It's perhaps not technically a threat from one poster to another, and so not uncivil in that way. However, can you not see how inappropriate this is, and how it IS quite the put down to be told another person can easily see how some Islamic person somewhere would see former deputies here as deserving of a fatwa for their "crimes?"
Posted by 10derheart on December 10, 2013, at 12:28:04
In reply to Shields and intolerance. » Lou Pilder, posted by SLS on December 10, 2013, at 8:19:58
Gosh, Scott your posts all over these threads have been wonderful. Your decency and general good sense give me more faith in humankind.
Thank you.
Posted by SLS on December 10, 2013, at 12:55:48
In reply to Re: Shields and intolerance. » SLS, posted by 10derheart on December 10, 2013, at 12:28:04
> Gosh, Scott your posts all over these threads have been wonderful. Your decency and general good sense give me more faith in humankind.
>
> Thank you.:-)
- Scott
Posted by SLS on December 10, 2013, at 13:10:46
In reply to Lou's reply-The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-jnphyv » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on December 10, 2013, at 8:00:09
> I am asking that you post to that post that the statement could lead people of other faiths to feel put down because it is against your rules to post what could put down those of other faiths.
Save yourself first. Jewish people convert to Christianity all the time.
- Scott
Posted by SLS on December 10, 2013, at 14:00:22
In reply to Lou's reply-The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-jnphyv » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on December 10, 2013, at 8:00:09
> > I am asking that you post to that post that the statement could lead people of other faiths to feel put down because it is against your rules to post what could put down those of other faiths.
> Save yourself first. Jewish people convert to Christianity all the time.I didn't mean that in a bad way.
I just feel that, if you want to go to Heaven, it is suggested by many that the only way to do this is to accept Jesus Christ as your Messiah and Savior. Many, many good-hearted and intellectually gifted people have come to this conclusion and have written much to help the Jews find the heaven that they seek. For it is written...
You state that you are here to save lives. Some people are here to save souls.
As you would have the world believe that you can save lives by following the methodology to be found in your proprietary spiritual revelations, others would have the world believe that they can save souls by following the one and only scripture that they are taught to be Truth.
I need to go shovel snow now. I'll be back.
- Scott
Posted by SLS on December 10, 2013, at 16:54:54
In reply to Bad ways. » Lou Pilder, posted by SLS on December 10, 2013, at 14:00:22
> I need to go shovel snow now. I'll be back.
I'm back.
I just thought you should know.
- Scott
Posted by Dinah on December 10, 2013, at 17:37:45
In reply to Re: Shields and intolerance. » SLS, posted by 10derheart on December 10, 2013, at 12:28:04
> Gosh, Scott your posts all over these threads have been wonderful. Your decency and general good sense give me more faith in humankind.
>
> Thank you.As is often the case, 10der has said exactly what I feel.
Posted by Dr. Bob on December 10, 2013, at 18:30:01
In reply to Lou's reply-The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-jnphyv » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on December 10, 2013, at 8:00:09
> I suggest that if you are unwilling to state that the statement in question is against your rules to not post what could put down those of other faiths, then could you post your rationale for such here? If you could, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
I don't think we disagree about the original statement. I think we disagree about my proposed restatement.
Yes, it could be read as putting down some reasons. But #5 was just one in a list. Do you consider it uncivil to post that the other 9 are bad reasons, too?
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on December 10, 2013, at 19:06:41
In reply to Re: shielding oneself » Dr. Bob, posted by 10derheart on December 10, 2013, at 12:20:26
> I don't know what you're talking about. Please do not use a therapeutic tone with me. I am not striving to use shields defined by you and certainly not to get a back pat. Yuk. What has happened to your appropriate boundaries here? This is a message board, not the therapy space and it is CREEPY when you sound like you are acting as a therapist to me. Please stop it.
I didn't mean to creep you out, sorry. I understand you're not looking to me for guidance or trying to please me.
And I know this isn't therapy. I'm thinking about the board, not about you. I can't know what's best for you. Would it be less creepy if you thought of me as a cop who pat you on the back for not speeding? I didn't think it was inappropriate to recognize you for responding in a civil way.
> It didn't get to me, you say? Shows how very, very little you understand anything about any of this if you believe that for a minute.
That's a good point. I apologize. All I knew is that you responded in a civil way. I didn't know what the experience was like for you. It may have really disturbed you.
> However, can you not see ... how it IS quite the put down to be told another person can easily see how some Islamic person somewhere would see former deputies here as deserving of a fatwa for their "crimes?"
I do see that it could be taken that way. I also see that it could be taken as a hypothetical scenario of low probability.
Bob
Posted by Dinah on December 10, 2013, at 19:33:05
In reply to Re: shielding oneself, posted by Dr. Bob on December 10, 2013, at 19:06:41
I appreciate your phrasing yourself in terms of what's best for your idea of what Babble should be, and leaving off the shrink talk.
I disagree with you completely.
But I'm far less likely to be enraged if you leave off pretending that your behavior is in our best interests, and just focus on it being what you want us to do for your own purposes.
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 10, 2013, at 20:16:49
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on December 10, 2013, at 18:30:01
> > I suggest that if you are unwilling to state that the statement in question is against your rules to not post what could put down those of other faiths, then could you post your rationale for such here? If you could, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
>
> I don't think we disagree about the original statement. I think we disagree about my proposed restatement.
>
> Yes, it could be read as putting down some reasons. But #5 was just one in a list. Do you consider it uncivil to post that the other 9 are bad reasons, too?
>
> BobMr. Hsiung,
You wrote,[...I don't think that we disagree about the original statement...]
The statement is insulting per se to Jews, Islamic people, Hindus and all other people that have faiths that have their agenda not centered in Christ.
Now the other 9 reasons are not specific to other people's faiths like #5 is. They are general reasons that could be found in any organized religion, even in religions that are Christiandom religions. So those reasons do not put down Jews or Islamic people and the others for them being Jews and Islamic and such, but for any religion having that agenda, even a Christian religion. But #5 puts down Judaism and Islam and Hinduism and the others because they do not have their agenda centered in Christ, which is an insult to all the people in those religions, and insulting to the religion itself because of the use of the category of being in the worst that readers could think means that those religions that do not have their agenda centered in Christ are bad religions. And that could mean to a subset of readers that the people in those religions could feel put down as seeing that you allow the statement to be seen as supportive and conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community and worse, it will be good for this community as a whole to allow the statement to be seen that way due to it not being sanctioned. And even worse, since you state that one match could start a forest fire and readers could see that you agree with me about the statement, then the fire of hate could be still burning.
Lou Pilder
Posted by SLS on December 10, 2013, at 21:11:27
In reply to Lou's reply-The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-phyrvheyt » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on December 10, 2013, at 20:16:49
The statement is insulting per se to Jews, Islamic people, Hindus and all other people that have faiths that have their agenda not centered in Christ.
How do you know this?
- Scott
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 11, 2013, at 6:32:21
In reply to Re: Lou's reply-The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-phyrvheyt » Lou Pilder, posted by SLS on December 10, 2013, at 21:11:27
> The statement is insulting per se to Jews, Islamic people, Hindus and all other people that have faiths that have their agenda not centered in Christ.
>
> How do you know this?
>
>
> - ScottFriends,
The poster asks me How do I know that the statement is insulting on its face to Jews and Islamic people and Hindu people and all other people that have a faith being in an organized religion that does not have its agenda centered in Christ.
This is all because it is published here by a psychiatrist and allowed to stand by not only him but multiple deputies that do his wishes that they can either sanction a statement or allow it to stand. The statement that an organized religion that does not have its agenda centered in Christ could be considered to be a bad religion by a subset of readers of the post, could libel Jews, Islamic people and the others that are in the organized religions so stated in the post in question. The statement is a false statement because Jews and Islamic people and Hindu people and the others so named by the post are not bad people or in a bad religion because their religion has an agenda not centered in Christ. The statement in question could stigmatize and be an insult to Jews and Islamic people and Hindu people the others and defame those people. By the fact that the statement stands, a subset of readers could be encouraged to post analogous statements as that they could see the statement as being good for this community as a whole and supportive because Mr. Hsiung and his deputies can control the content here. In some jurisdictions the owner of a website is responsible for third-party posts as if he/she wrote them him/her self. That is on appeal as we read now and I do not think that it will be overturned. As of now, the fact that Mr Hsiung and up to 6 deputies have not responded to my notifications for years is a fact that could stigmatize me and other Jews and others because he states that he does not respond so that others could be in some way encouraged also to not respond to me by his example. This is considered by psychologists as what is known as creating social isolation to me, which is in and of itself causing me great humiliation and is IMHHHO an insult to humanity itself not only by him doing it, but by others being in concert with him.
How do I know this? I know this because I have the training to know what {put down} means. I have the training to know what libel means. I have the training to know what defamation is. I have the training to know what could put down Jews when it can be seen. And I can know it when I see it.
Lou
Posted by Phillipa on December 11, 2013, at 19:39:24
In reply to Lou's response-lybl/stig/defm/ihnsul » SLS, posted by Lou Pilder on December 11, 2013, at 6:32:21
I'm not a member of an organized religion so what does this make me in your opinion of course? Phillipa
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Administration | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.